Modern communication systems such as mobile phones, e-mail and the Internet have greatly increased the ability of individuals to send, request and receive information. However, as this enhanced communications ability has resulted in increased information flow, it has also given rise to inefficiencies due to the need to sort received information to determine which items of information are important and which items of information are less important.
A number of systems have been proposed to automate the sorting of received information. These systems include known electronic mail filtering systems such as that disclosed in WO00/41366 which automatically stores emails received from identified addresses in defined files. Also, systems are known such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,329,578 which automatically forwards telephone calls from defined locations based upon recognition of caller identification data. Although such systems do automate the sorting of received information, the prior art systems are based upon the assumption that all messages from specified locations should be treated in a similar manner. Where individual needs for messages from the same location vary over time, this generally requires receivers to reconfigure their sorting systems. The systems are therefore generally inefficient for processing messages where the requirements for processing messages from the same location vary over time.
Another alternative system for sorting emails is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,967 in which for different email addresses, a recipient identifies a value of a stamp required on an email, which was attached to the email by the sender. When email messages are received the filtering system checks whether a sufficiently high value stamp has been included within the message by the sender. If this is not the case the email is rejected or categorized as being lower in priority. This system is somewhat limited in its filtering accuracy and categorization of data in accordance with a variety of criteria.
An alternative system for automating the sorting of emails is to associate keywords with defined storage locations. When an email message is then received, a storage location for the message is selected based upon matching words in the subject line to the stored keywords. Although such systems enable users to vary the processing of messages from the same location, such systems are limited by the need for users to utilize the correct keywords in messages and may result in an inappropriate processing when keywords are used in ways other than those expected.
Another system is disclosed in WO99/64972 wherein the recipient can supply a set of categories to the sender and the sender selects from these categories when sending messages to the recipient. Upon receiving a message, the message is than sorted according to the receiver's categories. Although this particular system overcomes the need for users to utilize the correct keywords, it requires all senders to utilize the same set of categories when sending messages to the recipient. This particular system has somewhat limited sorting capability, when considering that it is desirable that categories be kept very general to be relevant to a relatively high number of potential future senders.
In another system, a telephone system is suggested EP0825752 in which a recipient provides senders with a set of extensions to be dialed when leaving a voice-message. This prior art system discloses providing different extensions to different users but does not appear to permit a mechanism that informs recipients of their then available extensions which renders the use of these extensions relatively cumbersome and rigid.
A still other prior art system for prioritizing electronic mail has been disclosed in WO99/64972 A2, where a sender categorizes an e-mail message bound for a recipient based upon predefined categories set by the recipient and provided to the sender. Categorized email messages are received by the recipient and are prioritized according to a priority level also predefined by the recipient for each category. The priority levels are not provided to the sender, minimizing potential abuse by incorrect categorization.